Search for: "Cave v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 510
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 May 2023, 12:13 am by Frank Cranmer
Background In Mr A Cave v The Open University [2023] UKET 3313198/2020, the OU received internal and external complaints in June 2020 about what was claimed to be racist material that Mr Cave had posted on Twitter and on a YouTube channel he had set up entitled “Renew Britannia” [6]. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 5:07 pm by INFORRM
The case of Merlin Entertainments LPC v Peter Cave ([2014] EWHC 3036 (QB)) explores the extent to which a campaign of criticism, conducted by internet and email, can merit restraint by the civil courts. [read post]
24 Jul 2013, 5:42 am by Susan Brenner
 He filed a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment, claiming it “fails to state an offense. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 2:18 pm by Dwight Sullivan
The convening authority in the case of United States v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 6:04 pm by Dwight Sullivan
Phil “My Liege” Cave notes on his blog that a CAAF petition was filed in United States v. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 8:59 am by Dwight Sullivan
Phil Cave’s blog notes this story reporting that ACCA yesterday denied the petition for extraordinary relief arising from the United States v. [read post]
18 May 2021, 9:25 am by Robbie Stern
On 10 May 2021, the Supreme Court heard the appeal in R (Majera) (formerly SM (Rwanda)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”). [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 12:42 pm by Michael Geist
The post Caving on Bill C-18: Government Outlines Planned Regulations that Signal Willingness to Cast Aside Core Principles of the Online News Act appeared first on Michael Geist. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 12:37 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 4:33 pm
For reasons I hope to set out later in the weekend, I think changing the supp time periods in the immediate aftermath of United States v. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 3:47 am by INFORRM
In Shakeel Begg v BBC ([2016] EWHC 2688 (QB)), Haddon-Cave J held that allegations that the claimant is an extremist speaker who has promoted jihad are substantially true. [read post]